Interview with Alexander Dugin

In February 2012, Professor Alexander Dugin traveled to New Delhi, India to attend the 40th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, the theme of which was “After Western Hegemony: Social Science and its Publics.” Professor Dugin was kind enough to take some time away from the conference to answer a few questions by representatives of Arktos who attended the event.

In this interview, we attempted to have Professor Dugin clarify some of his basic beliefs in order to dispel the confusion and misrepresentations that exist about him and his movement, the Eurasian Movement, and its offshoot, the Global Revolutionary Alliance, in the English-speaking world. The interview was conducted by Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos, and John B. Morgan, Editor-in-Chief.

This interview is being released in conjunction with Prof. Dugin’s appearance at Identitarian Ideas 2012, being held by the Swedish organization Motpol in Stockholm on July 28, 2012, and the simultaneous release of Prof. Dugin’s book The Fourth Political Theory by Arktos (http://www.arktos.com/alexander-dugin-the-fourth-political-theory.html). This is the first book by Prof. Dugin to appear in the English language.

There is a perception in the West that you are a Russian nationalist. Do you identify with that description?

The concept of the nation is a capitalist, Western one. On the other hand, Eurasianism appeals to cultural and ethnic differences, and not unification on the basis of the individual, as nationalism presumes. Ours differs from nationalism because we defend a pluralism of values. We are defending ideas, not our community; ideas, not our society. We are challenging postmodernity, but not on behalf of the Russian nation alone. Postmodernity is a yawning abyss. Russia is only one part of this global struggle. It is certainly an important part, but not the ultimate goal. For those of us in Russia, we can’t save it without saving the world at the same time. And likewise, we can’t save the world without saving Russia.

It is not only a struggle against Western universalism. It is a struggle against all universalisms, even Islamic ones. We cannot accept any desire to impose any universalism upon others – neither Western, Islamic, socialist, liberal, or Russian. We defend not Russian imperialism or revanchism, but rather a global vision and multipolarity based on the dialectic of civilization. Those we oppose say that the multiplicity of civilizations necessarily implies a clash. This is a false assertion. Globalization and American hegemony bring about a bloody intrusion and trigger violence between civilizations where there could be peace, dialogue, or conflict, depending on historical circumstances. But imposing a hidden hegemony implies conflict and, inevitably, worse in the future. So they say peace but they make war. We defend justice – not peace or war, but justice and dialogue and the natural right of any culture to maintain its identity and to pursue what it wants to be. Not only historically, as in multiculturalism, but also in the future. We must free ourselves from these pretend universalisms.

What do you think Russia’s role will be in organizing the anti-modern forces?

There are different levels involved in the creation of anti-globalist, or rather anti-Western, movements and currents around the world. The basic idea is to unite the people who are fighting against the status quo. So, what is the status quo? It is a series of connected phenomena bringing about an important shift from modernity to post-modernity. It is shaped by a shift from the unipolar world, represented primarily by the influence of the United States and Western Europe, to so-called non-polarity as exemplified by today’s implicit hegemony and those revolutions that have been orchestrated by it through proxy, as for example the various Orange revolutions. The basic intent behind this strategy is for the West to eventually control the planet, not only through direct intervention, but also via the universalization of its set of values, norms, and ethics.

The status quo of the West’s liberal hegemony has become global. It is a Westernization of all of humanity. This means that its norms, such as the free market, free trade, liberalism, parliamentarian democracy, human rights, and absolute individualism have become universal. This set of norms is interpreted differently in the various regions of the world, but the West regards its specific interpretation as being both self-evident and its universalization as inevitable. This is nothing less than a colonization of the spirit and of the mind. It is a new kind of colonialism, a new kind of power, and a new kind of control that is put into effect through a network. Everyone who is connected to the global network becomes subjected to its code. It is part of the postmodern West, and is rapidly becoming global. The price a nation or a people has to pay to become connected to the West’s globalization network is acceptance of these norms. It is the West’s new hegemony. It is a migration from the open hegemony of the West, as represented by the colonialism and outright imperialism of the past, to an implicit, more subtle version.

To fight this global threat to humanity, it is important to unite all the various forces that would, in earlier times, have been called anti-imperialist. In this age, we should better understand our enemy. The enemy of today is hidden. It acts by exploiting the norms and values of the Western path of development and ignoring the plurality represented by other cultures and civilizations. Today, we invite all who insist on the worth of the specific values of non-Western civilizations, and where there other forms of values exist, to challenge this attempt at a global universalization and hidden hegemony.

This is a cultural, philosophical, ontological, and eschatological struggle, because in the status quo we identify the essence of the Dark Age, or the great paradigm. But we should also move from a purely theoretical stance to a practical, geopolitical level. And at this geopolitical level, Russia preserves the potential, resources and inclination to confront this challenge, because Russian history has long been intuitively oriented against the same horizon. Russia is a great power where there is an acute awareness of what is going on in the world, historically speaking, and a deep consciousness of its own eschatological mission. Therefore it is only natural that Russia should play a central part in this anti-status quo coalition. Russia defended its identity against Catholicism, Protestantism and the modern West during Tsarist times, and then against liberal capitalism during Soviet times. Now there is a third wave of this struggle – the struggle against postmodernity, ultra-liberalism, and globalization. But this time, Russia is no longer able to rely on its own resources. It cannot fight solely under the banner of Orthodox Christianity. Nor is reintroducing or relying on Marxist doctrine a viable option, since Marxism is in itself a major root of the destructive ideas constituting postmodernity.

Russia is now one of many participants in this global struggle, and cannot fight this fight alone. We need to unite all the forces that are opposed to Western norms and its economic system. So we need to make alliances with all the Leftist social and political movements that challenge the status quo of liberal capitalism. We should likewise ally ourselves with all identitarian forces in any culture that refuse globalism for cultural reasons. From this perspective, Islamic movements, Hindu movements, or nationalist movements from all over the world should also be regarded as allies. Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and pagan identitarians in Europe, America, or Latin America, or other types of cultures, should all form a common front. The idea is to unite all of them, against the single enemy and the singular evil for a multiplicity of concepts of what is good.

What we are against will unite us, while what we are for divides us. Therefore, we should emphasize what we oppose. The common enemy unites us, while the positive values each of us are defending actually divides us. Therefore, we must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ or, in other terms, Kali-Yuga.

Where does traditionalist spirituality fit into the Eurasian agenda?

There are secularized cultures, but at the core of all of them, the spirit of Tradition remains, religious or otherwise. By defending the multiplicity, plurality, and polycentrism of cultures, we are making an appeal to the principles of their essences, which we can only find in the spiritual traditions. But we try to link this attitude to the necessity for social justice and the freedom of differing societies in the hope for better political regimes. The idea is to join the spirit of Tradition with the desire for social justice. And we don’t want to oppose them, because that is the main strategy of hegemonic power: to divide Left and Right, to divide cultures, to divide ethnic groups, East and West, Muslims and Christians. We invite Right and Left to unite, and not to oppose traditionalism and spirituality, social justice, and social dynamism. So we are not on the Right or on the Left. We are against liberal postmodernity. Our idea is to join all the fronts and not let them divide us. When we stay divided, they can rule us safely. If we are united, their rule will immediately end. That is our global strategy. And when we try to join the spiritual tradition with social justice, there is an immediate panic among liberals. They fear this very much.

Which spiritual tradition should someone who wishes to participate in the Eurasianist struggle adopt, and is this a necessary component?

One should seek to become a concrete part of the society in which one lives, and follow the tradition that prevails there. For example, I am Russian Orthodox. This is my tradition. Under different conditions, however, some individuals might choose a different spiritual path. What is important is to have roots. There is no universal answer. If someone neglects this spiritual basis, but is willing to take part in our struggle, during the struggle he may well find some deeper spiritual meaning. Our idea is that our enemy is deeper than the merely human. Evil is deeper than humanity, greed, or exploitation. Those who fight on behalf of evil are those who have no spiritual faith. Those who oppose it may encounter it. Or, perhaps not. It is an open question – it is not obligatory. It is advisable, but not necessary.

What do you think of the European New Right and Julius Evola? And in particular, their respective opposition to Christianity?

It is up to the Europeans to decide which kind of spirituality to revive. For us Russians, it is Orthodox Christianity. We regard our tradition as being authentic. We see our tradition as being a continuation of the earlier, pre-Christian traditions of Russia, as is reflected in our veneration of the saints and icons, among other aspects. Therefore, there is no opposition between our earlier and later traditions. Evola opposes the Christian tradition of the West. What is interesting is his critique of the desacralization of Western Christianity. This fits well with the Orthodox critique of Western Christianity. It is easy to see that the secularization of Western Christianity gives us liberalism. The secularization of the Orthodox religion gives us Communism. It is individualism versus collectivism. For us, the problem is not with Christianity itself, as it is in the West. Evola made an attempt to restore Tradition. The New Right also tries to restore the Western tradition, which is very good. But being Russian Orthodox, I cannot decide which is the right path for Europe to take, since we have a different set of values. We don’t want to tell the Europeans what to do, nor do we want to be told what to do by the Europeans. As Eurasianists, we’ll accept any solution. Since Evola was European, he could discuss and propose the proper solution for Europe. Each of us can only state our personal opinion. But I have found that we have more in common with the New Right than with the Catholics. I share many of the same views as Alain de Benoist. I consider him to be the foremost intellectual in Europe today. That it is not the case with modern Catholics. They wish to convert Russia, and that is not compatible with our plans. The New Right does not want to impose European paganism upon others. I also consider Evola to be a master and a symbolic figure of the final revolt and the great revival, as well as Guénon. For me, these two individuals are the essence of the Western tradition in this dark age.

In our earlier conversation, you mentioned that Eurasianists should work with some jihadist groups. However, they tend to be universalist, and their stated goal is the imposition of Islamic rule over the entire world. What are the prospects for making such a coalition work?

Jihadis are universalists, just as secular Westerners who seek globalization are. But they are not the same, because the Western project seeks to dominate all the others and impose its hegemony everywhere. It attacks us directly every day through the global media, fashions, by setting examples for youth, and so on. We are submerged in this global cultural hegemony. Salafist universalism is a kind of marginal alternative. They should not be thought of in the same way as those who seek globalization. They also fight against our enemy. We don’t like any universalists, but there are universalists who attack us today and win, and there are also non-conformist universalists who are fighting against the hegemony of the Western, liberal universalists, and therefore they are tactical friends for the time being. Before their project of a global Islamic state can be realized, we will have many battles and conflicts. And global liberal domination is a fact. We therefore invite everybody to fight alongside us against this hegemony, this status quo. I prefer to discuss what is the reality at present, rather than what may exist in the future. All those who oppose liberal hegemony are our friends for the moment. This is not morality, it is strategy. Carl Schmitt said that politics begins by distinguishing between friends and enemies. There are no eternal friends and no eternal enemies. We are struggling against the existing universal hegemony. Everyone fights against it for their own particular set of values.

For the sake of coherence we should also prolong, widen, and create a broader alliance. I don’t like Salafists. It would be much better to align with traditionalist Sufis, for example. But I prefer working with the Salafists against the common enemy than to waste energy in fighting against them while ignoring the greater threat.

If you are in favor of global liberal hegemony, you are the enemy. If you are against it, you are a friend. The first is inclined to accept this hegemony; the other is in revolt.

In light of recent events in Libya, what are your personal views on Gaddafi?

President Medvedev committed a real crime against Gaddafi and helped to initiate a chain of interventions in the Arab world. It was a real crime committed by our President. His hands are bloodied. He is a collaborator with the West. The crime of murdering Gaddafi was partly his responsibility. We Eurasianists defended Gaddafi, not because we were fans or supporters of him or his Green Book, but because it was a matter of principles. Behind the insurgency in Libya was Western hegemony, and it imposed bloody chaos. When Gaddafi fell, Western hegemony grew stronger. It was our defeat. But not the final one. This war has many episodes. We lost the battle, but not the war. And perhaps something different will emerge in Libya, because the situation is quite unstable. For example, the Iraq War actually strengthened Iran’s influence in the region, contrary to the designs of the Western hegemonists.

Given the situation in Syria at present, the scenario is repeating itself. However, the situation, with Putin returning to power, is much better. At least he is consistent in his support for President al-Assad. Perhaps this will not be enough to stop Western intervention in Syria. I suggest that Russia assist our ally more effectively by supplying weapons, financing, and so forth. The fall of Libya was a defeat for Russia. The fall of Syria will be yet another failure.

What is your opinion of, and relationship to Vladimir Putin?

He was much better than Yeltsin. He saved Russia from a complete crash in the 1990s. Russia was on the verge of disaster. Before Putin, Western-style liberals were in a position to dictate politics in Russia. Putin restored the sovereignty of the Russian state. That is the reason why I became his supporter. However, after 2003, Putin stopped his patriotic, Eurasianist reforms, putting aside the development of a genuine national strategy, and began to accommodate the economic liberals who wanted Russia to become a part of the project of globalization. As a result, he began to lose legitimacy, and so I became more and more critical of him. In some circumstances I worked with people around him to support him in some of his policies, while I opposed him in others. When Medvedev was chosen as his heir, it was a catastrophe, since the people positioned around him were all liberals. I was against Medvedev. I opposed him, in part, from the Eurasianist point-of-view. Now Putin will return. All the liberals are against him, and all the pro-Western forces are against him. But he himself has not yet made his attitude toward this clear. However, he is obliged to win the support of the Russian people anew. It is impossible to continue otherwise. He is in a critical situation, although he doesn’t seem to understand this. He is hesitating to choose the patriotic side. He thinks he can find support among some of the liberals, which is completely false. Nowadays, I am not so critical of him as I was before, but I think he is in a critical situation. If he continues to hesitate, he will fail. I recently published a book, Putin Versus Putin, because his greatest enemy is himself. Because he is hesitating, he is losing more and more popular support. The Russian people feel deceived by him. He may be a kind of authoritarian leader without authoritarian charisma. I’ve cooperated with him in some cases, and opposed him on others. I am in contact with him. But there are so many forces around him. The liberals and the Russian patriots around him are not so brilliant, intellectually speaking. Therefore, he is obliged to rely only upon himself and his intuition. But intuition cannot be the only source of political decision-making and strategy. When he returns to power, he will be pushed to return to his earlier anti-Western policies, because our society is anti-Western in nature. Russia has a long tradition of rebellion against foreign invaders, and of helping others who resist injustice, and the Russian people view the world through this lens. They will not be satisfied with a ruler who does not govern in keeping with this tradition.

47 Comments

I fail to see what Dugin hopes to achieve by aligning himself and the Eurasia movement with the New Right.

I thought the whole point of the Eurasia movement was a counter to Islam and US/British supported pan-Turanianism among the ethnic Turkic groups in Russia, China and Central Asia by creating an ideological, political and economic union among the Eurasian countries that comprise of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Belarus and Ukraine.

Why partially create Eurasian ideological theory based on western scholars and intellects who have failed to achieve anything in the own countries, do not view Russia historically or contemporary as part of the European nation states in fact they are viewed as a hostile nation state impeding on European sovereignty and are completely alien to the historical geo-political reality regarding Russia and her development or lack of it?

Frankly European and North American concerns regarding liberalism and issues related to it like immigration, multi-culturalism, etc are not the primary issues facing Russia.
Russia’s main challenges are corruption, organised crime, modernisation and diversification of the economy, demographics, political reforms and making Russia more attractive place for foreign investment.

Dugin’s goal with Eurasianism has always been much, much more ambitious than any purely local concerns. His geopolitical theories encompass the globe. Also, he is not opposed to the idea of aligning with Islamic groups in some circumstances, as he makes clear in this interview. As for Dugin and the New Right, Dugin has been close friends with ENR luminaries like Alain de Benoist and Jean Thiriart for decades. He has drawn from their thought since the early 1990s. However, he has never applied the term “New Right” to himself (nor have any of the ENR authors, for that matter). Dugin has also always claimed that Russia is NOT a part of Europe. However, he also recognizes that the importance of the philosophy of the ENR is not entirely specific to Europe itself.

Even if details of Dugin’s ideas are disagreeable – depending on one’s perspoective – his premise of geopolitical blocs or ‘vectors’ are important to consider.

As the geopolitical constructs of White Nationalism continue to increase in vision and potential, it is worthy of note, that the constraints placed upon the remnants of ‘western’ philosophy within the ‘american’ political milieu, is far removed from the organic understanding of the progressing white nationalist idealist. For instance, the general construct of WN’s already includes the concept of ‘vectors’, or as many have used ‘regions’, or ‘primary ethno-states’, to describe the inter-relationship between the larger and, International scope of our geopolitical strategy.

There is, and has always been an ‘american’ view, that we all belong to a extended ‘racial family’, this was the essence of the embryonic beginning of white nationalism; Manfred Roeder, as well as other European nationalists worked with many of our early ethno-nationalists, and it was the world-view of Richard Butler, however much his ‘aryan nations’ concept was without a preeminent organized orthodoxy, which allowed for the concept of a ‘world-wide’ ethno-state within the geopolitical understanding of ‘vectors’ or ‘regions’ , which is not, generally, the majority ‘european’ view, as their geneal lack of the ‘macro’ is beholden to their limited, yet powerful micro-nationalism.

The evolving White Nationalist is well beyond ‘petty politics’, whether nationalistic or otherwise.

@ KB

The future will be centered around Russia or China. Their present apparent rapproachment is an anomaly. Even Spengler saw the possibilities of a Russian High Culture as the next to arise after the West, and recommended an alliance between Germany and Russia against plutocracy (see my ‘Spengler and Russia’ in “Spengler: Thoughts and Perspectives’, Vol. 10, Black Front Press, London, 2012). Yockey of course came to a similar position.

Indeed? Anyone who has studied Spengler and Yockey (as you most certainly have) is aware of, in the first instance, a reluctance or ability to see beyond his Teutonic ties, indeed, his ‘organic ties’ with a ‘european’ West, and his entire analysis (of course strikingly brilliant from every angle) of the future of the ‘west’, was striking naked in regards to the potential of an ‘american rebirth’ as, even today, the spirit of our Western ‘birthing’ has been clouded by deceivers and our traditional enemies. In the second case, FPY was in the same boat, but was taking on far more water than even Spengler, as Yockey was actually living through the tremendous and perilous act of Treason by both the American and European ‘west’ (we will include Britain at that time, for the moment, as an ‘extra-psychological’ member of the West); he detested the ‘american’ west for what they were doing to the high-culture of the european west, and naturally saw a resurgence in a power(s) that, one day, might ‘punish’ errant members responsible for the catastrophe of which he was so close.

Russian high-culture? Perhaps.

Anyone who has had any dealings with political or military representatives of this modern State, would well observe (or remember from historical usage) the dramatic and powerful dichotomy between these ideas/persons and ourselves (here I speak of fellow white Americans); perhaps, it should be noted, that it is, precisely, ‘we’ in America, who are lesser beings, and dramatically underscores the very essence of ‘identity’ which is such a common attribute amongst our people here. One cannot achieve a lasting ‘alliance’ unless the very strongest of our thinkers and militarists are able to meet them, at the lest – at the half-way point.

@ BasilX

Dugin’s views are outmoded. I believe that he is not naive enough to take “Westernisation” means true Western culture imposed upon other people and races.

Is Mr. Dugin using these ‘ideas’ out of a sense of naivete? Again, perhaps. I sense, even as you, a subtle and inexorable direction of thoughts and ideas posited by others who, up to a point, claim to see our Future even as we, but following their offered path would, if not constantly scrutinized, lead to oblivion; certainly, as you have pointed out, how could anyone, anywhere, who was honest, see this ‘so-called’ westernization as the West or its ‘high-culture’?

@ Lew
(Added for Content analysis)

It would be less bothersome if Dugin simply avoided the JQ or took an agnostic stance on it. Unfortunately, Dugin goes out of his way to hang a Jew-approved smear label on the subject. The phrase “conspiracy theory” is Jewish agit prop.

The claim that “America” is the world’s major problem is also simply inaccurate and reflects a pretty superficial way of looking at the world. The problem is America and Jews, Jews inside and outside America, not just America.

Suggesting that “America” alone is the world’s problem is as superficial and misleading as blaming early Bolshevism on ethnic Russians and the Soviet government.

It is not as if this distinction is an inconsequential matter. How do you solve a problem when you don’t properly identify the source of the problem?

Well said.

White Nationalists run into the same problem when we ‘smear’ zionism as consisting of only an ethny. Zionism is a ‘world-view’, and is shared by our own people as well as our racial antagonists. We must always bear this in mind in the future, as it will give us much more ammunition to use against our detractors, and we need to do alot more of this in the public domain if we are to be noticed and taken seriously.

@ Fourmyle Ceres

There will be, and it will be a qualitatively superior Russia, I think.

One hears inklings of Russian nationalism, even of superior ethnic white nationalist tendencies, as the youth of Russian orthodoxy have taken to the nomenclature and symbolism of American White Nationalism like ducks to water. Not carried by the typical neo-con white nationalist milieu, was the ‘memorial demonstrations’ (see on YT) for David Eden Lane after his passing; the numbers of individuals was easily 100/1 in these public demonstrations of affection, as compared to the ‘american scene’. There is much talk about ‘looking eastward’ to the West, when it is precisely the opposite for our Eastern Brothers, looking Westward.

I encourage dialogue between our disparate parts – just make certain that these men and women have what it takes for the coming battle of the Ages.

Two posts above, Lew’s (July 28) and Razvan’s (July 29) spell out Dugin’s fatal flaw, assuming white survival is one’s vital goal. (It is a fallacy to believe that it is for everyone, including everyone here. It isn’t.)

It’s far too late in the day for more of this tiresome BS.

The siren call of collective death is more appealing to a sick and tired world than life and progress, which must be fought for.

Before we start talking about future alliances, the birth rate crisis in Russia needs to be addressed. There’s no use in talking about a Russian-Asian alliance if the Russians have all gone extinct, is there?

The issue, while valid, has several very useful educational opportunities for us.

One is the issue of Quality versus Quantity. If the Russians took this duty seriously, they could form a new organic aristocracy out of what is developing.

There is historical precdent for this. In his seminal work, “War and Peace and War,” Turchin uses the development model of medieval Russia’s dealing with Tatar invasions, among other issues. He noted that it took a while for the small, feudal social orders to unite, and this, in my view, led to the foundation of Russian asabiya (Arabic for collective solidarity), the common sense of the common good. One of Turchin’s most useful observations deals with this:

“People originating on fault-line frontiers become characterized by cooperation and high capacity for collective actions, which in turn allows them to build large and powerful territorial states.” (Turchin, p. 55)

All things being remotely equal, high asabiya peoples conquer low asabiya peoples. The common factor in this, in this case, is the certainty of a divine right and duty to rule, crystallized in the Russian Orthodox Church, followed by networking of the new Aristocratic families and their retainers, united, again, by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Unless the Russian government takes extreme action and does everything it can to get Russians to have children, there may not even be a Russia a century from now.

There will be, and it will be a qualitatively superior Russia, I think.

The demographic analysts usually use linear extrapolation; given the predominance of Chinese businessmen in the Vladivostok region, and their expansion into Siberia, all forecasters are unanimous that, a century from now, the street signs in Moscow will be written in Chinese.

I think the teeth kicking the Russian youth are getting is so damn hard, they will react with the explosive certainty that they will not be the victims any more, as the Jewish Leadership forced them to be over the last century. With proper guidance, and proper role models, a new Elite could manifest that could build the Bridge to the new Eurasian hegemon’s manifestation of the next phase of Western Civilization.

Imagine what nation you could build with ten thousand Putins, united by the Russian Orthodox Church as the living heart of the New Russia.

Before we start talking about future alliances, the birth rate crisis in Russia needs to be addressed. There’s no use in talking about a Russian-Asian alliance if the Russians have all gone extinct, is there? Unless the Russian government takes extreme action and does everything it can to get Russians to have children, there may not even be a Russia a century from now.

Dugin’s views are outmoded.I believe that he is not naive enough to take “Westernisation” means true Western culture imposed upon other people and races.It is strange to consider tactical alliance with other racial and religious groups.If he believes that, he is missing the most salient points of today’s world.Today all other races have grievances or even open animosity against perceived “injustices” done by the West and the white man.Does not he see that Western leaders openly seek atonement ?Does he think that when West is replaced by the alien racial and cultural group “Westernisation” will triumph ?

Dugin is a man one would take seriously if nationalist ideas had any real leverage. Instead, his ecumenical view seems fairly ordinarily Russian to my eyes, if not neo-Soviet.

So the question is how much leverage Dugin has. He says, ” I am in contact with [Putin]”, then immediately adds that Putin is surrounded by human apparatus. It appears to be no leverage at all, but a tolerated acquaintance like any other.

Now, there was some claptrap about ‘vectors’ up there, and I don’t quite know what that means, but it is already clear that Alexander Dugin enjoys no real leverage, no traction, no pull, weight, influence, whatever you like, in the Russian scene. His ideas may be agreeable, but the sharpest line ought to be drawn between the agreeable and the possible.

The trouble is that his map of the East already exists. It’s already a Russian cultural bloc with heavy Westernization. More troublesome is that to reverse Westernization, it would be necessary to deprive certain Commonwealth of Independent States of their technology, or at least subordinate or displace their native governments in favor of ethnic Russians again. That’s going to be war, because they won’t go willingly for “Dugin’s geopolitical vision”, i.e. nouveau cultural impersialism.

Two years ago, I think, Dugin was engaged in debate by a Brazilian sociologist; the name escapes me, but someone posted it all on a blogspot, and it’s fascinating reading — Dugin, despite the vague defense of ethnocentrism for whites, came off as embarrassingly shallow. There’s just a lot of old school poetic pap in his thinking, beginning with the word ‘geopolitics’, the same opium Hess and Hitler were smoking.

Roissy, for Dugin I don’t think it’s fear. Criticism of the Jews is far more mainstream in Russia than it is in America or in Western Europe. I’m sure that if Dugin wanted to make it a pillar of his thought, he would do so. However, in order to forge a supra-national alliance as broadly based as the one he describes in this interview, you have to leave aside certain issues. Being aggressively anti-Jewish would alienate many of the groups that Dugin envisions as part of this anti-hegemonic alliance. Therefore, he doesn’t discuss it. He doesn’t dismiss it, and besides, others are already working on that issue. This may not be what everyone here is looking for, but it is certainly a valid approach.

Phil, with all due respect, I recommend that if you want to have an informed basis from which to judge Dugin’s work, that you read more of his writings apart from this interview before making such speculations. He has already gone into great detail about his vision elsewhere. The plan for the geopolitical future of the world that he discusses in his books and essays bears little resemblance to what the Kremlin would like to see happen. Those who don’t like him have always tried to paint him as some sort of agent of Russian imperialism, but that isn’t borne out in his work. For one thing, he wouldn’t be so critical of Putin and Medvedev if he were just a mole.

Stronza
The Oliver speech can be heard at Kevin Alfred Strom’s website dedicated to Oliver, if you google that.
I should point out that the comment on the sino-russian repproachment being an anomaly that will not last is my own. As a NZer, one of the main points of disagreement with Dugin is the role he accords to China as the basis for a geopolitical vector which might include Australia and presumably NZ. I think the Antipodeans should be aligned to a Russia-centered vector that views China with suspicion. The other contentious point is Dugin’s suggestion of an American continental vector based around the USA. I would suggest the ideal of a Bolivarian bloc aligned to Russia, which already partially exists.
However, Dugin provides a vital basis for discussion, and a broad new geolpolitical paradigm.

Dugin is an essential geopolitical theorist. Take away the Jewish factor and you would still have a course of events that is negatively impacting on Western Civilisation through the laws of civilisation and decay, as per Spengler and Brooks Adams. Revilo Oliver tried to make a similar point decades ago in his speech ‘Conspiracy or Degeneracy?’.
Even if details of Dugin’s ideas are disagreeable – depending on one’s perspoective – his premise of geopolitical blocs or ‘vectors’ are important to consider.
The future will be centered around Russia or China. Their present apparent rapproachment is an anomaly. Even Spengler saw the possibilities of a Russian High Culture as the next to arise after the West, and recommended an alliance between Germany and Russia against plutocracy (see my ‘Spengler and Russia’ in “Spengler: Thoughts and Perspectives’, Vol. 10, Black Front Press, London, 2012). Yockey of course came to a similar position.
Dugin’s ideas are a springobard to vital discussions, and Dugin himself does not lay claim to infallibility or insisting on a dogma. It is his geopolitical principles that are relevant.
Excellent intereview.

Google Ngram is an extraordinary tool. I thank Larry Page and Sergey Brin for this, despite the fact they’re… you know. It allows one to analyze the origin and popularity of words, idioms and neologisms, and therefore to analyze the evolution of Culture in the countries speaking the language you research.

A quick research of “racism”, for example, will lead to these interesting results:

– The word was never used, in the English language and in the original text, before the 1920s and Franz Boas. I suspect that before, when speaking of racial inequalities, people simply used the term “biology”, and found no point in inventing a word for describing a widely accepted theory.

– Its use stayed anecdotal up to 1940 and the beginning of WWII, when it shot through the roof. Coincidence? I think not. It probably gained popularity because of propaganda writing on the Nazi regime.

– Its use decreased after 1945. Then, in 1960, it began an exponential explosion that brought it to be one of the most popular terms ever.

– The neologism “racism” would therefore not exist in the English language were it not for the existence of Jews.

If you do a quick research of “conspiracy theory” and associated terms (“conspiracy theories”, “conspiracist”), you will find roughly the same results: born in Jewish/left-wing intellectual milieus in the XXth century to attack right-wing populism, use anecdotal up to the 1960s when it began an exponential explosion.

My instinct tells me that both of these terms are emotionally loaded (something that Wikipedia editors seem to understand: they brand “conspiracy theory” everything they don’t like) and are the tools of our enemies. Using them is therefore debatable.

The terms “racist” and “racism” are not even correct English. The correct terms would be “racialist” and “racialism” and it is advisable to use them. These terms are formed analogous to “nationalist” and “nationalism” derived from the adjective “national” from the noun “nation”. So the analogy is :

As for the meaning of these words, one should insist that the meaning of the term “racialist” is just as acceptable as that of the term “nationalist”. A racialist is someone who loves his own race and wishes the best for it without necessarily wishing any harm to other races, just like a nationalist is someone who loves his own nation and wishes the best for it without necessarily wishing any harm to other nations.

The terms “racist” and “racism” are a Jewish invention created to weaken the racial solidarity of Whites with as ultimate aim their destruction. They are typically only used against Whites.

Several years ago, there was correspondence between Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky, and at that time, a burgeoning ‘nationalism’ was taking shape, and American White Nationalism was something that many in Russia saw as a ‘resurgence’ of real political ‘traditionalism’, with a small dose of revolutionary fervor, which the Russian mind takes too.

This interview is deep; and I am not sure (I will have to read it again) how to take this individual: there are many paths perilous for us in what he is intimating. This is why I am not comfortable with the ‘european intellectual’ ambitions and sycophancy of american neo-intellectualism; I prefer to see ourselves as in a preeminent position, as much as we can embrace Evola, Spengler, Nietzsche, and Yockey, just to name a few of our closest ideologues, the gist of this new Century must start and finish with our struggle preeminent.

With this said, as White Nationalists, direct and frequent deployment of our Ideas, coupled with our European allies is, without doubt, the only way we will achieve our success, let alone the success in our fellow White Nations. This is, no doubt, a professional attempt in ‘global politics’, and I am afraid that there are not enough ‘true believers’ to speak on behalf of our ideas in the world market – I say this, because in my opinion, there are only a handful of people who I have seen over the years ‘stay with the game’, and have not changed either their revolutionary dogma, or have not changed their national or racial nationalist positions, and remain in any viable condition to ‘speak’ on behalf of our Ideas.

The Frenchman, Benoist, comes to mind, and I have followed his commentaries on this site – I am not overly impressed, but not totally soured either; partly, the reason that the ‘european’ experience seems to not resonate with me, is the lack of understanding they/he has about US, as unique and independent minds worthy of attention. Moreover, this allows for a sycophancy amongst WN’st thinkers, at the expense, in my mind, of our own traditional concepts – this discussion, however, is a MUST, and if we are to continue towards a comprehensive programme, we must assert ourselves even more.

Tom Sunic, as well, started out a little ‘anti-american’ WN’st, but seems to have crossed his river, and deals a little more appreciatively with those he has interviewed and written.

Mr. Dugin is man to watch, and we must listen closely to what may be hegemonic counter to what we are presenting; the constant inference of ‘west’ as a demonic presence, without addressing, or at least adducing, the JQ and its incumbent ‘anglo mercenaries’, is to deprive a world-wide revolution based on Tradition – for whose tradition will it be?

Dugin uses the term “West” in the same sense as Pierre Krebs – namely, by asserting that it is an artificial invention primarily designed to gloss over the many unique identities that exist in Europe, in order to make us believe that the United States and all of the European peoples are essentially the same – which makes us easier to control as consumers. Therefore, when he refers to the West as an evil entity, he says so because he regards the concept as demonic and artificial – not because he thinks the American people and the individual nations and traditions which make up Europe are demonic.

As for a worldwide revolution based on Tradition – yes, Dugin is calling for that, but in order to defend Tradition successfully, ALL traditions must be defended – and not just the tradition of one’s own community. This is where he parts ways from many others in our circles. Dugin is not an apologist for continued US/Western European global domination under a different banner.

It might be better explained as the “manifestations of Tradition” in different communities. All manifestations of the truths we seek to defend are by definition valid, and thus all must be defended against subversion.

In that case I’d say his wish to fracture the cultural unity of “The West” is just a Russian KGB agitprop way of trying to disintegrate the allliance the U.S. has deployed against Mother Russia.
Maybe Dugin does an occaionals agit prop errand for the KGB?
The CIA uses American corporations, individuals and NGO’s to run errands all the time.
KGB not all bad. In Andrew and Gordievsky’s 1992 “KGB” they stated that the KGB historically had been the most anti-semitic institution in the USSR.

I have to disagree with Dugin regarding Libya as other than supplying Gadaffi with arms Libya did not present any major geopolitical interests for Russia unlike China that had oil contracts with Libya and a gateway into developing African market with Chinese labour in exchange for African energy.

Syria on the other hand is of vital importance to Russia as serves with the port at Tartus a trading outpost for Russian cargo ships and Russian access to the Mid East markets and a security buffer for jihadists travelling freely through Syria and Turkey into the Caucasus.

No, just the opposite. It’s an article of faith for the European New Right NOT to discuss anything about Jews, one way or the other. Although one could interpret their critique of Judeo-Christianity and Israel as a roundabout way of doing this.

Dugin’s concern is the United States and its allies (including Israel). As I wrote above, if one sees the hand of Zionism behind what they’re doing, it is entirely compatible with Dugin’s worldview. But he seems to prefer to leave it to others to figure out what brought this situation into being. Politically speaking, he focuses upon addressing the problem of American hegemony. And there is no question that the United States is the primary engine behind all the liberalizing trends in the world today. Whether one chooses to combat the influence of the United States as an agent of Zionism or for some other reason, the problem remains the same.

Mr. Dugin might be afraid; but it might be that the Occident and the Western man are the archenemy. Enmity that might suggest an unholy alliance with the international jewry.

Otherwise how anyone can understand “THE JEWS AND EURASIA” written by Mr. Dugin. You can find some edifying excerpts on the net. Also “eurasian jews” like Yakov Bromberg. There he attacks the “conspiracy theory” of some “bad” Russians in “dark ages”.

“Russia needs someone to save, in order to save herself.” It makes perfect sense indeed. Aren’t the neo-cons burnt by the same desire to save the world by setting it on fire?

“Jewish orientalism, the deeds of humbleness and sublime insensateness of the first legendary tsadiki, the sincere compassion to our fellow creatures, irrespective of their racial and religious origins, the fanatical belief in equity and the honest building of society, and at last, that vaguely guessed solidarity with another tragical and beautiful people of history, too elected, chosen by God, the Russian people – all this is ineradicable from a definite part of hebraism, inseparable from its unique destiny. ”

Aleksandr Dugin

It looks enough for me to understand where eurasianism really stays and what’s Mr. Dugin answer to the jewish question.

He attacks the idea of Nation as “western” and “capitalist”. Of course. Any empire needs some kind of “internationalist” discourse. Multiculturalism, diversity vs multi-polarity and diversity of values. He fights the western universalism proposing his own brand. His discourse was indeed “politically correct”. The problem is the West and the western man. Not the Empire that brings forcefully different people and races together – the jewish perfect environment.

Scratch Mr. Dugin back and you’ll find most probably the latest brand of “neo-con” imperialist. The only difference is that you should replace US with Russia.

Imagine all the jewish power operating on the behalf of the new Russian Empire. It worked well in the past even it was limited to the Pale of Settlement – i.e. foreign occupied land; the dual jewish and Russian occupation was almost mortal for every Eastern European people. The jews were not the pogrom’s victims. They were the eager servants of the Empire. The pogroms were peasants rebellions against the occupation and the horrific exploitation. Everything went well until the jews wanted everything for them eliminating their former employers.

It worked back then, now it is working for America. Why not Russia once again.

Mr. Dugin does nothing else than:
– blame the Occident
– ask for a new chance for his Empire
– disguise the empire in nice words depending on the target audience

An alliance called Eurasian empire the Last Empire of the two chosen by God people – the jews and the Russians. Of course the millions of whites (Russians and so many others) exterminated by the jews are of no importance for Mr. Dugin. Guess the Russians nationalists are happy indeed with him.

As an aside, and taking seriously the eurasianism, nowhere in history the Russian empire was to be trusted as an ally. A treaty with a tsar always meant a future occupation or a devastation of the country by the “allied troops”.
Why would anyone believe otherwise right now?

Dugin never seems to address the JEWISH QUESTION directly. That kind of bothers me.

The JQ is a bump in the road, to someone who sees the development of Russian spirituality as something that is Christian in essence, and yet existed before Institutional Christianity transformed the Spirit into the Servant. In this context, Russian Orthodoxy is a much greater manifestation of the outworking of the Deed of Christ than any mere organization.

The organic component deals with the issue of Race as well, for the Russian people – the Russian Race – developed a national Christianity that serves the uniquely Russian Soul.

To such people, the Jews are merely a bump in the road of their national development.

Just as the Russian Orthodox Church was “captured” by the KGB’s predecessor organizations, only to have the Russian Orthodox capture the KGB, and transform it into something serving the Russian people (these people take the LONG view of human affairs), so do they see Judaism as something that is inherently doomed to defeat by its own materialistic nature.

One quick comment: intelligent analysis of the JQ is essential to The Cause.

Yet, all too often, we have been demoralized by dealing with News and Views about the Jews (NVJ), rather than seeing in what THEY are doing to US as opportunities for us to Do Better, much better, for our Selves. If THEY are always proactive, and We are always REACTIVE, then THEY always get to define and shape he Agenda.

Let’s be focused, concerned, disciplined and aware of THEM, and let’s not obsess over THEM, who only have the power over us we allow them.

Let’s use our power to help us.

Lucy always beat Charlie Brown by such techniques, you know.

I long for the day Charlie Brown watches the great movie “Fight Club.” He might then get Putin’s “Let’s Learn Judo with Vladimir Putin” DVD, and make something of himself.

It would be less bothersome if Dugin simply avoided the JQ or took an agnostic stance on it. Unfortunately, Dugin goes out of his way to hang a Jew-approved smear label on the subject. The phrase “conspiracy theory” is Jewish agit prop.

The claim that “America” is the world’s major problem is also simply inaccurate and reflects a pretty superficial way of looking at the world. The problem is America and Jews, Jews inside and outside America, not just America.

Suggesting that “America” alone is the world’s problem is as superficial and misleading as blaming early Bolshevism on ethnic Russians and the Soviet government.

It is not as if this distinction is an inconsequential matter. How do you solve a problem when you don’t properly identify the source of the problem?

It would be less bothersome if Dugin simply avoided the JQ or took an agnostic stance on it. Unfortunately, Dugin goes out of his way to hang a Jew-approved smear label on the subject. The phrase “conspiracy theory” is Jewish agit prop.

I suspect the reason might be that, all too often, people have made nebulous reference to the JQ in terms of conspiracies, usually, sadly, vast conspiracies that are seen as the reason for their continued ineffectiveness. “After all,” the reasoning goes, “the Conspiracy is so vast, so powerful, what can we do in the face of it?”

And, conspiracies – Racial conspiracies – change their skins to suit the season. Duskin is reflecting a multi-generational – perhaps, multi-century – perspective. Thus, one and all can look to the New Polaris for a Russian heart of a Eurasian phase of Civilization. The Jews become something easily stepped over. After all, look how deeply they controlled the apparatus of State Security. believing they had co-opted and neutralized the Russian Orthodox Church.

The claim that “America” is the world’s major problem is also simply inaccurate and reflects a pretty superficial way of looking at the world. The problem is America and Jews, Jews inside and outside America, not just America.

Good point, as American has become the handmaiden of the Judaics, but the military bases that have surrounded Russia since World War II do not fly the flag of the Zionist entity over them. Look at a map of US bases around the world, and realize we have occupied Europe, and Asia, in a manner that Hitler would not have dared dreamt of. Indeed, we have surrounded Russia on all sides with the exception of Iran…

Guess where the line will be drawn.

Suggesting that “America” alone is the world’s problem is as superficial and misleading as blaming early Bolshevism on ethnic Russians and the Soviet government.

It is not as if this distinction is an inconsequential matter. How do you solve a problem when you don’t properly identify the source of the problem?

If you deal with the feet and hands of the National Enemy – America – you will stop the controlling intellect, Judaism, from being effective.

For the first time in more than a century, Russia is defining Russia’s destiny. The Jewish Leadership saw how easily they were neutralized, and are now allowed to exist, by and at the sufferance of the Russian Orthodox Church, spiritual heart of the Russian people.

the military bases that have surrounded Russia since World War II do not fly the flag of the Zionist entity over them. Look at a map of US bases around the world, and realize we have occupied Europe, and Asia, in a manner that Hitler would not have dared dreamt of. Indeed, we have surrounded Russia on all sides with the exception of Iran…

The bases fly the American flag because the locals want them to. This is true in Poland, Romania and elsewhere. While the anti-American Euro rightists tend to see the bases as evidence of outrageous American belligerence, in point of fact, the locals invited and continue to invite the Americans in. Barack Obama recently approved stationing ballistic missiles in Poland and Romania because the Polish and Romanian governments want the missiles there. Why? Well, I don’t know for sure, but I’d venture a guess it has something to do with Russia’s long record of invading its neighbors. The Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians and Eastern Europe understand this trend very well. Thus, Russia’s neighbors have good reason to be scared and to want protection. This, I think, is one reason we have been able to keep Russia surrounded 20 years after the end of the Cold War. Russia’s historical belligerence makes its fearful border states easy pickings for the Americans.

This is fascinating stuff. This is why I keep returning to this site. Who is in the position to oppose liberalism and its universalism? I had read the conspiracy theories that said the revolts in the middle east were orchestrated by the west, but I had nothing against which to measure or ascertain any validity to the concept. After all they were written by westerners. (what’s their agenda?) However, someone outside the west saying these things makes all the difference. Another book on my list.

What is happening with your fund-raising? This is the only site I have ever given money. In this day and age it is sort of ‘put your money where your values are’ that is of course if you know what they are.

Dugin is not interested in that subject. When I was talking with him, he made it clear that he’s not interested in what he calls “conspiracy theory.” He has been critical of Israel before, but his real target is the U.S. and its allies in Western Europe. At the same time, however, he has never objected to those who discuss this subject. The work done by scholars such as Kevin MacDonald is entirely in keeping with Dugin’s worldview, if one wishes to combine them.

If Dugin calls the idea of Jewish machinations behind modern global developments, that he so much combats, a “conspiracy theory”, then that means he is either ignorant or afraid of Jewish power.
An informed Russian like he must know about the role of Jews in the genocidal communist period in his own country, could he not suspect a similar role in modern global developments? Obviously even in Putin’s Russia Jews still have a lot of power.

At least Evola had the guts to lay out the totality of the Subversive history of the world for those with eyes and ears to perceive it. Its all documented, follow Evola and Geunon’s thesis on couter-initiation and your will figure it out.

You will also figure out rather quickly why no one can speak specifically against ‘it’.

4 Trackbacks

[…] And this anti-Americanism is constantly being fueled by thinkers such as Dugin. He regards the political correctness and the liberalism of the United States and the western world as a “common enemy” that the rest of the planet must unite to fight against. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Dugin… […]